I agree with the previous comment. I feel that the game should be in 2-D in order to allow for the contributions of those nations who are not as technologically advanced. It is important to keep the game aessable to the highest number of people because this is designed to be a global game. I also agree that there should be future options for the implementation of 3-D graphics. I believe that as technological advances are made and more countries have higher technological capacities the game should be able to switch over to 3-D. Also, it would be good to give the player the option of choosing 3-D or 2-D. I think that would be best because it would still allow the highest number possible to play the game.
skeadie makes a great point about access...and the technological requirements behind 3-D graphics could prohibit a large population from contributing to the game. However, the door should not be shut on 3-D graphics and a change to this in the future should be a possibility.
Because this is a global politics game, there needs to be a sensitivity to the technological capacities of as many places around the world as possible. The simple fact is that many nations are behind in their access to high performing computers and speedy internet access. Keeping it 2D will be pragmatic in that it will allow as many people to play as possible. Besides, the main point of this game is not to create a video game with the best graphics.
i think a 2D game would retain the aspects of political theory in the game. this abstract nature keeps the door open to pondering outside possibilities
I personally think that the 'fast downloading and low memory requirements' would allow more people to access the game - and more easily at that. The game would benefit from having as many people as possible participate in it, and this would be achievable with a 2D game. If the game was in 3D but required a specific browser or internet-speed connection to access, it would limit a large number of people from participating. Aesthetics are important, but access is essential.
I agree with this comment. Having the game in 2D is the practical and most realistic way to go. If many people had the specific browser and fast internet needed for 3D then it would be the best option. But realistically , you can't expect everyone to have these specific requirements for the best kind of graphics. I also admire what this person said in the last part of his comment that "Aesthetics are important, but access is essential" which is very true. How could you enjoy the best graphics of the game if you can't even access the game? And if you do have access to the game most people probably couldn't which would lead to the downfall of the game instead of success.
I agree with the previous comment. I feel that the game should be in 2-D in order to allow for the contributions of those nations who are not as technologically advanced. It is important to keep the game aessable to the highest number of people because this is designed to be a global game. I also agree that there should be future options for the implementation of 3-D graphics. I believe that as technological advances are made and more countries have higher technological capacities the game should be able to switch over to 3-D. Also, it would be good to give the player the option of choosing 3-D or 2-D. I think that would be best because it would still allow the highest number possible to play the game.
skeadie makes a great point about access...and the technological requirements behind 3-D graphics could prohibit a large population from contributing to the game. However, the door should not be shut on 3-D graphics and a change to this in the future should be a possibility.
Because this is a global politics game, there needs to be a sensitivity to the technological capacities of as many places around the world as possible. The simple fact is that many nations are behind in their access to high performing computers and speedy internet access. Keeping it 2D will be pragmatic in that it will allow as many people to play as possible. Besides, the main point of this game is not to create a video game with the best graphics.
i think a 2D game would retain the aspects of political theory in the game. this abstract nature keeps the door open to pondering outside possibilities
I personally think that the 'fast downloading and low memory requirements' would allow more people to access the game - and more easily at that. The game would benefit from having as many people as possible participate in it, and this would be achievable with a 2D game. If the game was in 3D but required a specific browser or internet-speed connection to access, it would limit a large number of people from participating. Aesthetics are important, but access is essential.
I agree with this comment. Having the game in 2D is the practical and most realistic way to go. If many people had the specific browser and fast internet needed for 3D then it would be the best option. But realistically , you can't expect everyone to have these specific requirements for the best kind of graphics. I also admire what this person said in the last part of his comment that "Aesthetics are important, but access is essential" which is very true. How could you enjoy the best graphics of the game if you can't even access the game? And if you do have access to the game most people probably couldn't which would lead to the downfall of the game instead of success.